1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

R.S.A.No.909/2020 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

1 .

MAHADEVAPPA

S/O LATE NANJAPPA

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

2 .

NANJUNDASWAMY

S/O LATE NANJAPPA

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

3 .

SHIVAPPA S/O LATE NANJAPPA

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

4 .

KOOSANNA @ SIDDALINGAPPA

S/O LATE NANJAPPA

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

APPELLANTS ARE R/AT HALLIKERE VILLAGE

CHIKKAIHANACHATRA HOBLI

NANJANGUD TALUK-571124.

& APPELLANTS

(BY SRI MANJUNATH PRASAD V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MAHADEVAPPA (DEAD)

S/O CHANDRASHEKARAIAH

SINCE DEAD BY LRs.,

1 .

DEVAMMA

W/O MAHADEVAPPA

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

2

2 .

DEVAMANI

S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

3 .

MAHADEVAMMA

D/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

ALL ARE R/O. C/O. LATE SIDDAPPA

D.NO.28/1, THAMMADAGERIBEEDI

HINKAL, VIJAYANAGAR POST

MYSURU-570017.

... RESPONDENTS

THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.02.2020

PASSED IN RA.NO.14/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND

CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.01.2016

PASSED IN OS.NO.341/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD.

THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants on Admission.

2.

The parties are referred to as per their rankings

before the Trial Court to avoid confusion and for the convenience

of the Court.

3.

The

factual

matrix

of

the

case

is

that

the

appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit seeking for the relief of

3

declaration and injunction in O.S.No.341/2010 based on the

document of the unregistered sale deed, which is marked at

Ex.P4. Apart from that, the plaintiffs have also relied upon the

documents at Exs.P1 to P3 and Exs.P5 to P7 and those

documents are the challan, lease deed, mutation register,

genealogical tree and also the RTCs. In support of their

contention, they examined plaintiff No.3 as P.W.1 and other two

witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3. On the other hand, learned

counsel for the respondents/defendants examined two witnesses

as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.D1

to D34.

4.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the

plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the plaintiffs were put in

possession based on the unregistered sale deed. No doubt, the

plaintiffs have paid the duty and penalty on the said document.

The said document has been marked only on payment of duty

and penalty for the purpose of marking the document as Ex.P4.

The Trial Court, after considering, both oral and documentary

evidence, in para Nos.15 to 17, in detail discussed the nature of

the document and particularly as to how Ex.P4 came into

4

existence. It is the claim of the learned counsel for the

appellants that unregistered document is dated 19.01.1988. In

para No.16 of the said judgment, the Trial Court also discussed

the fact that the stamp paper was purchased on 20.01.1989 and

the date of the sale deed is 19.01.1988 and has come to the

conclusion that the said document came into existence in a

suspicious circumstances.

5.

The Trial Court, further, in para No.17, discussed the

claim made by the plaintiffs and also with regard to obtaining the

ex-parte

injunction

and

cancellation

of

the

said

order

subsequently and the right claimed by the plaintiff on the other

document i.e., lease agreement, which is marked at Ex.P3 and

comes to the conclusion that those documents not confer any

title in respect of the plaintiffs to grant the relief of declaration

and injunction.

6.

Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the

appellants/plaintiffs also filed the appeal in R.A.No.14/2016. The

First Appellate Court also considered both oral and documentary

evidence and discussed in detail, at para